and together with the 30-days and 60-days numbers
\begin{array}{| r | r |} \hline \hline \text {Metric} & \text {30 days in Beta} & \text{60 days in Beta} & \text{90 days in Beta}\\ \hline \text {Q per day} & 5.1 & 5.3 & 5.4\\ \text{% answered} & \text {85%} & \text {84%} & \text {80%}\\ \text{avid users} & 38 & 48 & 54\\ \text {total users} & 473 & 730 & 981\\ \text {Engaged users %(*)} & N/A & 33\text{%} & 34\text{%} \\ \text {answer ratio} & 1.9 & 1.8 & 1.8\\ \text {Visits/day} & 238 & 202 & 192\\ \hline \end{array}
$\Big[$(*) "Engaged Users" are those that do not have reputation $1$ or $101$, i.e. those that had at count day performed some reputation-affecting activity on the site (I count out also the $101$'s because the $100$ points are SE-registration bonus if they are active on other sites). I decided to show "engaged" rather than "unengaged" users, since all other metrics in the table have the association "larger value = better".$\Big]$
"Stable or stagnant?" summarizes the situation... Perhaps the slowing increase of the "Avid Users" metric, together with the "% Answered" metric reaching the alert threshold of $80$%, push the answer towards "stagnant". But even if this is the case, I believe we should approach it as "stagnated" rather than "stagnant". Because it's up to us.
